Nothing was premined. Nakamoto might actually have 1 Million BTC, or that might be someone else. But I know that there was no premining. I was here well before the 1 millionth BTC was mined, and I did some of it myself. Kindly stop spreading bullshit.

There was no "pre-mine" but someone ended up with a wallet with 1 million coins. I'll draw my conclusions, thanks.

True, but you've got to remember that in the beginning of Bitcoin it didn't hold value beyond mathematical curiosity. There is an interesting read here into a cryptoforensic analysis of the early blockchain and the "ExtraNonce" data:

Long story short - when he kicked it off he had to set up something to do the mining as that is what drives the transaction processing until other people started doing it to share the load. It's kind of like when downloading torrents and you are the only seed - until other people join in and there are enough doing it to keep it running as people come and go online. There is speculation that Satoshi may have just set this early miner up as a background "dumb process" to keep the network going in those early days and didn't bother to even track or keep any of the coins. After all, it had no value at that time and who could have predicted it.

There is speculation that Satoshi may have just set this early miner up as a background "dumb process" to keep the network going in those early days and didn't bother to even track or keep any of the coins. After all, it had no value at that time and who could have predicted it.

This part isn't true. It was his baby, he kept the coins. In fact, I remember an event wherein someone on the forum offered Satoshi $50 per btc for as many of the genesis block coins as he was willing to sell. The response was along the lines of, 'No thanks, those are for my son.'

Furthermore, there was some speculation as to whether or not Satoshi could actually spend the genesis block coins. The view being that, since the genesis block is actually unique, some clients might choke on the attempt to deal with verification of such a transaction; and that it wasn't worth the risk of a blockchain fork. Since those early blocks still have never moved, it's also possible that those early keys have been lost or that Satoshi is dead.

EDIT: at the time, the market price for a single bitcoin was about a nickel.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

There is speculation that Satoshi may have just set this early miner up as a background "dumb process" to keep the network going in those early days and didn't bother to even track or keep any of the coins. After all, it had no value at that time and who could have predicted it.

This part isn't true. It was his baby, he kept the coins. In fact, I remember an event wherein someone on the forum offered Satoshi $50 per btc for as many of the genesis block coins as he was willing to sell. The response was along the lines of, 'No thanks, those are for my son.'

Furthermore, there was some speculation as to whether or not Satoshi could actually spend the genesis block coins. The view being that, since the genesis block is actually unique, some clients might choke on the attempt to deal with verification of such a transaction; and that it wasn't worth the risk of a blockchain fork. Since those early blocks still have never moved, it's also possible that those early keys have been lost or that Satoshi is dead.

EDIT: at the time, the market price for a single bitcoin was about a nickel.

I believe that offer was specifically for coins in the Genesis block (Block 0) itself, not those that came after. If you check out the target wallet address for block 0 you can see they only ever held the genesis block mined coins. Coins mined after that went someplace else.

There's no winner in this argument... You found a flaw, and took advantage of it. And Mt.Gox did what any normal business would do, and that is to try and keep ALL the customers happy. Doesn't matter anymore though since this forum post is so old.

There's no winner in this argument... You found a flaw, and took advantage of it. And Mt.Gox did what any normal business would do, and that is to try and keep ALL the customers happy. Doesn't matter anymore though since this forum post is so old.

Never came across this thread. Read the first two pages and I was shocked...

Pretty interesting to bump this today, as Mark was charged of embezzlement. I too wonder what would the reactions be today. I figure they'd be really different.

It's not so different today. During the brief August crash on Bitfinex down to $160 there were complaints that people's buy orders at $170 weren't filled. That's similar to Kevin's experience, although Bitfinex didn't let people have their lowball buy order coins then take them back. I'd be furious if I had $$170 buy orders on that didn't get filled. However, MtGox kept on trading afterwards, and likewise Bitfinex kept on trading afterwards.

I feel like OP should have been given that money,he didn't do anything wrong. the seller of the order wanted to crash prices and he did that. But the person buying the coins hasnt done anything wrong.

indeed you are right. but i wonder what really happen now to those bitcoins.its a large amount of money. hm... and he doesnt do anything wrong since he's just a buyer.did he withdrawal all of his bitcoin in time? or the only thing he withdrawal is the600+btc? hmmm... im thinking what did he do wrong...

Never came across this thread. Read the first two pages and I was shocked...

Pretty interesting to bump this today, as Mark was charged of embezzlement. I too wonder what would the reactions be today. I figure they'd be really different.

It's not so different today. During the brief August crash on Bitfinex down to $160 there were complaints that people's buy orders at $170 weren't filled. That's similar to Kevin's experience, although Bitfinex didn't let people have their lowball buy order coins then take them back. I'd be furious if I had $$170 buy orders on that didn't get filled. However, MtGox kept on trading afterwards, and likewise Bitfinex kept on trading afterwards.

To start off my reply I'd like to say that our knowledge of Mt. Gox today is very different than what they had back then and that might influence each and every one of our posts in the forum.

Both situations are a bit different as far as I can understand. Someone (hacker or not) put up a huge sell wall (of what were supposedly legit Bitcoins and not Goxcoins as later in time) that crashed the market. People had buy orders low, because you know, just in case (who doesn't have them?) and the user managed to put a low order just in time to get cheap coins. Why not? Trades were rolled back under the reasoning that it was a hacker who did it... But people had already bought the coins. I know that coins on exchanges aren't really ours, but people had legitimately put buy orders and bought the coins at the price they wanted. It's not the buyers and sellers fault that their systems were not secure enough, as we've been having proof of in the last few weeks, and it isn't the fault of the people who bought the coins that other users (might have) had weak passwords.

As for Bitfinex's case, the orders weren't even filled to begin with, which was different (although also the exchange's fault: the system didn't correspond to what customers were expecting).

I know it's hard to ask for these services to be 100% able to correspond to users demands... But we can't (yet) resort solely to face-to-face trading and we need online trading systems that are stable and correspond to the user's desires, and don't simply rollback trades on bad reasoning.

The only legit rollback I recall (at least in near past) was that one where there was a 0.8 fork, and even that one might be questionable by some. That was an honest and serious bug related to incompatibility and was fixed quickly without a big harm to end users, as far as I recall.